Democracy or republic?

[lpetrich]

Mike Lee on Twitter: "We’re not a democracy." / Twitter

Puesto Loco™ on Twitter: "@SenMikeLee .@SenMikeLee mouths the old 1950's John Birch Society fascism slogan: https://t.co/UrR3VbTjvz" / Twitter

"This is a republic not a democracy. Let's keep it that way. John Birch Society"

Seth Cotlar on Twitter: "@johnastoehr @SenMikeLee I believe it's this John Birch Society talking point. https://t.co/dR1gYSDMiH" / Twitter

"summary, I personally think that, as said in The Blue Book of The John Birch Society, democracy is a weapon of demagoguery and perennial fraud. I think that constitutional republic is the best of all forms of government man has yet devised. Our Founding Fathers thought so too, and the wisest Romans had already come to that same conclusion. So I am in excellent company. It is company which we hope more and more Americans will join. To that end we are saying everywhere we can, and asking all of you and tens of thousands to say with us: This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let's keep it that way!"

Robert Welch, Republics & Democracies

That is a real book: DOWNLOAD - Republics and Democracies reprint associated with the John Birch Society

Without the proper foundation, Liberty will crumble!

The United States is a republic, not a democracy. Robert Welch, founder of The John Birch Society, shows why the difference is critical.

 

[lpetrich]

Responding to Sen. Mike Lee's "We’re not a democracy":

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Maybe we should be." / Twitter

Also:
Opinion | Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy? - The Washington Post

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

Author Eugene Volokh noted that one can argue about making US democracy more direct or less direct, and he concluded with

But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.” “Democracy” and “republic” aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as “a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people”). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, “democracy” has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.

Direct democracy is impractical for anything larger than a very small community, so one has to live with representative democracy.

There are forms of republics that are semi-democratic, like a democracy with limited voting rights, like to people who own some land for them to live on.

There are forms of republics that are non-democratic, like one-party states. Communist countries, for instance.

In common terms, the opposite of republic is monarchy, but it can often be difficult to draw the line. A constitutional monarchy is essentially a hybrid system, a monarchy with features of a republic. Such a monarchy can be mostly ceremonial, making the regime a republic in almost all but name.

 

[Gospel]

This discussion is useless (always has been) until more than the minority (on the entire planet scale) gets to weigh in.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Will our designation change if Trump loses on 11/3, and then he and Barr manage to throw out enough "problem" ballots to reverse the election result?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Will our designation change if Trump loses on 11/3, and then he and Barr manage to throw out enough "problem" ballots to reverse the election result?

No, because everything they do will be to save the republic from those who would destroy it.

 

[lpetrich]

If one wants to go back to the Founders for terminology, then one must be careful. Some of them used some rather odd terminology by present-day standards.

John Adams wrote "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" in 1797, and he discussed "democratical republics", "aristocratical republics", and "monarchical republics". That latter one may seem like a contradiction in terms to us, but what he was describing was constitutional monarchy, a sort of republic-monarchy hybrid.

John Adams was the US's second President, serving 1797-1801.

One can find free scans and OCRs of the book online, like at the Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine. One has to be careful of a certain typographical feature that was common back then: the long s, a s that looked like a f without the short horizontal stroke.

 

[lpetrich]

Sen. Mike Lee started tweeting about democracy and republicanism during the VP-candidate debate, after tweeting Mike Lee on Twitter: "Utah became a state in 1896, nearly 50 years after applying for statehood as the State of Deseret. We consume more Jello on a per capita basis than any state in the Union." / Twitter

Mike Lee on Twitter: "The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. To me it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few." / Twitter
Pure projection. Right-wingers often seem like they work in movie theaters.

Mike Lee on Twitter: "Government is the official use of coercive force—nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution protects us by limiting the use of government force." / Twitter
Right-libertarian whining. That force is exercised through military and police forces, and right-wingers emotionally believe that soldiers and cops are heroic vigilantes who should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Mike Lee on Twitter: "We’re not a democracy." / Twitter

Mike Lee on Twitter: "@KamalaHarris here’s why you should agree that we’re not a democracy: the whole point of a constitution is to tell majorities what they can’t do, regardless of how badly the majority wants them. Free speech protections? Totally anti-Democratic." / Twitter

Mike Lee on Twitter: "@KamalaHarris what if most people wanted to burn books you thought were good? The First Amendment would operate in a blatantly undemocratic fashion there." / Twitter

Mike Lee on Twitter: "Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that." / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Looking at Mike Lee's tweets, I think that he'd love Communist China. That is because that nation is a republic that is not a democracy.


Sen. Lee responds to criticism over democracy tweets: 'There's nothing more counter-fascist than a constitutional republic like ours'
was praised by
Mike Lee on Twitter: "It’s a big deal, because in many ways, the whole idea of having a constitution itself, particularly a constitution that establishes a constitutional republic like ours, is materially different and distinct from a democracy. https://t.co/OQ6soFBJ3N" / Twitter


When Sen. Mike Lee tweeted ‘We’re not a democracy,’ Twitter became the battleground for the republic - Deseret News
got this response
Mike Lee on Twitter: "I wish Utah had a thoughtful, print-media enterprise willing to delve into the important distinction between a democracy and a constitutional republic like ours. https://t.co/w0oetfphnj" / Twitter


Republican senator says 'democracy isn't the objective' of US system | US news | The Guardian

 

[SimpleDon]

The constitution was written as a representative form of government to limit democracy’s electorate to white, land owning males. I think that this why the "not a democracy" largely right-wing crowd find this argument so appealing. But also 18th-century realities forced the choice of a representative form of government on the drafters of the constitution. With the slow travel and communication, not to mention the limited education of the majority, they had little choice.

However, the history of the country since the constitution was written has been one of increasing the numbers of those who can vote and therefore of moving toward a more inclusive democracy.

I think that I understand those on the right who are afraid of increasing democracy because they are afraid of any change, especially ones that they believe threatens their place in society. This is another gift from the libertarians to movement conservatism, the fear of the "tyranny of the majority."

It is just another example of conservatives' willful ignorance. The refusal to face facts when doing so would go against their long-held beliefs.